Wisconsin public Internet fights telecom attempts to kill it off

A proposal coming out of Wisconsin's legislature would throw that state's …

The University of Wisconsin's Internet technology division and a crucial provider of 'Net access for Wisconsin's educational system are under attack from that state's legislature and from a local telecommunications association. At issue is the WiscNet educational cooperative. The non-profit provides affordable network access to the state's schools and libraries, although its useful days may be numbered unless the picture changes soon.

Under a proposed new law, the University of Wisconsin system could be forced to return millions of dollars in federal broadband grants that it has already won, spend far more money on network services, and perhaps even withdraw from the Internet2 project.

Give it back

As we go to press with this story, WiscNet is negotiating with the leadership of Wisconsin's state legislature. Here's how the situation stands now: at the urging of Wisconsin's state telecommunications association, Republican legislators have introduced an omnibus bill that would sever WiscNet from the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Division of Informational Technology, and bar it from taking any money from UW.

The proposed law even goes so far as to prohibit UW from taking National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA) broadband stimulus grants, or joining any entity that offers broadband to the general public.

These measures would force UW to return an estimated $39 million in such funds to Washington, DC, warned Tony Evers, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, last week. And they would force schools to turn to Badgernet, Wisconsin's state wide-area-network, which depends heavily on AT&T as its primary vendor.

"These provisions will have a devastating impact on the University of Wisconsin System campuses and our schools and public libraries," Evers told the state legislature following the bill's passage from a Joint Finance Committee on Friday June 3. "You cannot have a renowned research institution, like the UW-Madison, without having access to such networks."

We spoke with David Lois, Executive Director of WiscNet, on Saturday; he's busy working with legislators to avert disaster. "We're looking for opportunities to move forward and we're working on some sort of compromise, but it's difficult when we're beginning at this point," he told Ars.

University of Wisconsin economic development professor Andy Lewis is also involved in the negotiations. "I think this has always been about the telcos getting us to return those stimulus grants," he explained. "I think that this has been about what it has been all about from the beginning."

This is a development of huge significance; the University of Wisconsin helped invent the 'Net as we know it.

Wisconsin's idea

Were it not for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Internet might look very different. Three decades ago, Wisconsin engineers and scientists pioneered the Computer Science Research Network (CSNET)—an affordable Internet Protocol based infrastructure that would link computer science departments across the country. CSNET addressed a crucial problem. Many CS departments could not or were not qualified to hook up to the ARPANET, the original IP network. Either they either did not engage in defense research or they lacked the high price tag for admission.

As a consequence, research institutions that had no ARPANET access faced extinction, as faculty and graduate students migrated elsewhere, in many instances to well funded private sector facilities with ARPANET membership.

"An exodus of computing talent from academia to industry had caused a nationwide fear that the United States would not be able to train its next generation of computer scientists," write Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon in their history of the 'Net, When Wizards Stay Up Late.

So Madison invited six other universities to a meeting, then lobbed a series of proposals over to the National Science Foundation for funding. Under the final NSF plan, colleges would get affordable access to Telnet and several other early network protocols. CSNET was a huge success. Within five years, practically every computer science department in the United States had Internet access, thanks to the experiment.

But Madison's brainchild also inspired the NSF to create NSFNet—a series of regional CSNET-like projects that followed the affordable Madison educational model. "By the end of 1989, the ARPANET was gone," Hafter and Lyon write. "The NSFNET and the regional networks it had spawned became the principal backbone."

WiscNet is a state level spinoff from the CSNET idea. From 1990 through 1995, the non-profit won NSF grants to extend Internet access to all the states' colleges and universities. Then the project wired up the majority of school districts. Next came libraries and local governments. None of this could have happened without the constant assistance of the IT staff at UWMadison, which WiscNet hired to manage and run the system.

75 percent of Wisconsin's schools and 95 percent of its public libraries now get Internet access from WiscNet. Like CSNET, WiscNet became a model for educational systems across the country. It also became a target for the Wisconsin State Telecommunications Association.

Duplicate network?

In October of 2010, the WSTA launched a campaign denouncing a UW plan to use federal stimulus money to expand WiscNet's presence in four Wisconsin communities.

"A duplicate network will increase costs for everyone and impact the ability of local telecommunications providers to invest in their communities," declared WSTA's Executive Director William Esbeck. "With scare state resources, do we really need the UW using government money to stifle private sector investment and threaten local jobs and businesses?"

The trade association went so far as to suggest that UW/WiscNet's activities were unlawful. "The legal issues are being researched and lawsuits are a possibility," Esbeck insisted. "The UW does not belong in the telecommunications business . . . the current statutes are very clear on that point."

Actually, the Wisconsin statutes that Esbeck cited are anything but clear. Sure, section 16.972(2)(a) says that no Wisconsin state agency:

may offer, resell, or provide telecommunications services, including data and voice over Internet services, that are available from a private telecommunications carrier to the general public or to any other public or private entity.

provide such computer services and telecommunications services to local governmental units and the broadcasting corporation and provide such telecommunications services to qualified private schools, tribal schools, postsecondary institutions, museums, and zoos, as the department considers to be appropriate and as the department can efficiently and economically provide.

Undaunted by these inconvenient technicalities, the group asked for "more legislative review of UW's broadband plans." Eventually, that review arrived in the form of the already mentioned omnibus legislation. Section 23 of the new proposal would prohibit the UW system from receiving or dispersing any funds from the NTIA's broadband stimulus program. Section 24 would amend current law to prevent the state's Board of Regents or UW System from providing telecommunications services "that are available from a private telecommunications carrier to the general public or to any other private entity" to anyone except the UW system itself.

Section 25 would prohibit the UW System from "becoming or remaining a member, shareholder, or partner" with any entity that "offers, resells, or provides telecommunications services to members of the general public." And finally, provision 26 specifies that WiscNet must separate itself from the UW-Madison Division of Information Technology as of July 1, 2012, and forgo the $1.4 million from the UW system intended for WiscNet in 2012-13.

Making it impossible

There are a variety of problems with this proposal from the perspective of WiscNet and Wisconsin's public colleges and schools. First, there's the spectacle of UW giving back millions of federal dollars earmarked for educational broadband upgrades. "We're trying to save the public money," Lois pleaded in his conversation with us. "We're talking about millions more to do broadband in the state."

Then, as Superintendent Evers pointed out in his letter, financially and operationally cutting WiscNet off from Wisconsin institutions will cripple its efforts.

"The provision in this legislation will very likely make it impossible for WiscNet to continue offering Internet access," he noted. "If our schools and libraries must use other Internet providers, most will pay at least 2-3 times more than what WiscNet now charges."

A UW response to the "duplication-of-services" charge contends that 100Mbps BadgerNet service currently runs $6,000 a month; 1,000Mbps goes for $49,500 a month. "These costs will likely drop with renewal of the BadgerNet contract but this has not happened yet," the statement notes. "And even when it does, the costs will likely still be too high."

And unlike WiscNet, schools will then be charged by bandwidth use. At present, "as schools and libraries continue to increase their bandwidth, their WiscNet costs remain the same," Evers writes. "With our schools and libraries facing substantial budget reductions, how can anyone justify making them pay more for less service?"

To put it in comparative terms, UW Chief Information Officer Ed Meachen told WTN News that because of the different bandwidth pricing approaches, WiscNet costs the UW system $2 million a year. BadgerNet would cost $8 million.

Height of irony

The legislature has received hundreds of letters protesting these proposals. One of the most notable comes from H. David Lambert, CEO of Internet2, the non-profit ramping up to provide 8.8 terabits per second of bandwidth to the US Unified Community Anchor Network (US UCAN). The network amounts to around 200,000 community "anchor institutions"—K-12 schools, libraries, clinics, hospitals, and community colleges. In the winter of 2010, the project received a $62 million broadband stimulus grant from the government to get this project underway.

"It would be the height of irony if sections 23-26 of the University Omnibus legislation were passed, as those provisions would prohibit the University from being directly involved in proving out further developments of innovations in the Internet that it helped create," he wrote. "This would deny the University the ability to participate in the innovation cycle that created the market for commercial providers (including those who support the 11th hour insertion of sections 23-26) to provide their services in the first place."

As for WiscNet's Lois, he seemed cautiously optimistic, at least on Saturday. "The legislators have heard the WiscNet community. They've said 'you can't do this to us'," he explained. "We're trying to come up with a reasonable compromise."

UW's Lewis thinks that most of those section paragraphs could disappear, save language forcing a return of the grants. This would force the layoff of personnel already involved in rolling out broadband to those four areas.

"This thing is entirely inappropriate," Lewis declared. "If our slogan is 'Wisconsin is open for business,' we're going in the wrong direction."

When might a new proposal emerge? "Monday at noon at the earliest. Tuesday at the latest," Lois predicts.

101 Reader Comments

Wherever there is the chance for lower prices to users, whatever means show promise for better serving the customers, wherever there is the hope for faster internet... the Telecos will be right there to snuff it out and bury it in a shallow grave.

at the urging of Wisconsin's state telecommunications association, Republican legislators have introduced an omnibus bill that would sever WiscNet from the University of Wisconsin at Madison's Division of Informational Technology, and bar it from taking any money from UW.

[no state agency] may offer, resell, or provide telecommunications services, including data and voice over Internet services, that are available from a private telecommunications carrier to the general public or to any other public or private entity.

Don't they merely have to show that they will be offering 100mb or 1000mb service for somewhat cheaply? I imagine that no private telecommunications carrier is making service like that available in that area. If the local cablecos/telcos don't want to run fiber through an area then they don't have to, but I can certainly see why areas that have large amounts of faculty and grad student housing would want fiber connections to their domiciles for legitimate university purposes.

Why are they making a crazy comparison between shittastic cable/dsl connections and (presumably) wiscnet stringing fiber connections?

BS like this is happening nationwide. Whether it's what they're doing in Wisconsin, the crap in the Carolinas, or what you can guarantee will happen with the guys over at Sonic in California. The telecoms need to make sure they're getting all of the hundreds of billions of dollars the government has been putting out for infrastructure development (which the tetlcos have been pocketing; they were at approx. 4% of the goal by the 2006 deadline, then asked for and received more time and money, ensuring we remain at 16th in the world for internet and falling further behind), while doing everything possible to stagnate development, to maintain artificial scarcity so as to support their claims of justification for absolutely obscene pricing for horrifically poor speed, performance, and stability.

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

To put it in comparative terms, UW Chief Information Officer Ed Meachen told WTN News that because of the different bandwidth pricing approaches, WiscNet costs the UW system $2 million a year. BadgerNet would cost $8.

Seems to me that should read "...would cost $8 million."

Aside from that, it seems to me that the "unfair competition" from municipal (and similar) broadband deployments prove that "competitive" broadband is vastly overpriced. Even assuming they're pulling money from the tax system*, I still can't see it making up the difference.

* Honestly, I would like to see broadband as a taxpayer perq; if you pay taxes, you get a minimum broadband level. No taxes/no broadband, taxes only/basic broadband, beyond taxes/enhanced broadband. Seems equitable.

For fuck's sake...literally 1-2 in 10 new stories I've read lately are about telco's/ISPs somehow maneuvering the legal system to protect their *opoly and keep smaller (typically more affordable) providers out of the arena. Its been ridiculous, now its just absurd. I'm surprised there's not more pressure from federal-level agencies to put a stop to this; sure, the FCC throws in a few words occasionally, but unless I've missed something, they're not really stopping this from happening.

Besides, from the sounds of it, this is a state-/university-funded operation; that has to be ringing some bells somewhere in Wisconsin's governing body, shouldn't they be fighting to protect this from going under instead of helping hold its head under the water?

Every time I read this sort of article, I get conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I feel as if its just one more nail in the coffin of an ideal that's been long dead for years; the ideal being a true free and open market when it comes to internet/cable/mobile providers. Europe is way ahead of us in this regard, yet we (read: governing bodies) won't do anything like them, for fear of being called a dirty Socialist. Honestly, its getting as bad as the McCarthy era.

On the other hand, it always seems like everyone's getting one step closer to that breaking point, the point where we say "ENOUGH" and start actually rising up against it. Sure, other companies (Google, Sonic.net) and local municipalities (various, can't remember the specifics) have been doing great things by providing bandwidth that usually isn't even offered by the major ISPs for far less than most of their "package savings" deals, but they can't do everything. People need to start standing up to these companies, but there's no real way to do that besides "voting with your dollar." Trouble is, you've got one or two scummy choices in 95% of the situations, so in the end, its not effective enough until a new choice is offered. What can we do to make these "new choices" more prominent?

On the other hand, we can think about getting federal gov't involved, but that goes against the free/open market ideals. Could we perhaps make it so that state governments cannot regulate ISPs at all? That way, when ISPs raise their rates, new providers (ideally) would pop up much more frequently, out of need rather than simply offering another choice. Sure, it would be painful for a while, but if it leads a country-wide surge in cheap, "super-bandwidth" ISPs, I would deal with it. In a country with 5 major ISPs offering around 15/5 and numerous smaller ones offering sub 10/2, we could use a little flooding of small, regional ISPs offering 1000/x for way better than the 15/5 prices.

On the other hand....THERE IS NO OTHER HAND! (+5 Internetz for whoever gets the relatively obscure movie reference).

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

No, I voice legitimate complaints about telecoms that receive fortunes for a good and service that isn't delivered. I voice legitimate complaint about being in the country that literally invented the internet, and yet is ranked 16th in the world. I voice legitimate complaint about the fact that five years ago, for the cost of a heavily restricted and capped 3Mb/s connection in the US, I could get a 100Mb/s pipe with no restrictions in Sweden (as can most of europe if they're even remotely near a population center).

Corporate shills are not welcome here, you might have better luck fooling the masses in a cesspool like GameFAQs' or Gizmodo's forums.

pontavignon wrote:

The more the corporate-led environment betrays you folks in the United States, the more you give to it. Classic Stockholm Syndrome.

You have a democracy. Try using it. Stop feeding the beast that's consuming you.

Actually, it's a republic utilizing a representative democracy. The proportions for that representation haven't changed in who knows how long (more than a century if I'm not mistaken) ignoring changes in population distribution and density.

The determining factor is no longer even votes, or the candidates themselves, so much as the amount of money they can throw around to get the best publicity. Then, in the end, it comes down to what is effectively a two-party system, where the majority of the semi-thinking minority (the majority being the completely and willfully ignorant) vote not for the candidate they want in office, but to keep the other one out of office.

As it actually happens, it boils down to corporate puppetry, and the ones with the deepest wallets make the calls. Pretty much everything done these days does little other than infringe on the freedoms our country supposedly stands for, enriches corporate interests at the expense of the consumer (read: the constituents of those corporate-funded puppets in government), and has been progressively widening the gap between the middle class and the top 1% (you want a real scary thought, 5 years ago, before the economy was really taking a hit, the average entry level job with a 2-year college degree was US$8/hour in western Massachusetts; the state minimum wage was US$7.50/hour).

Boils down to the simple fact that the majority just don't know and don't care to, and will take anything and everything they're told at face value, if they even listed to what's said in the first place. The people actually thinking and acting are such a minority that the actual difference is negligible. Discontentment is growing, but it's going to be a while yet before it reaches a head and enough people actually stand up and do something.

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

You're absolutely right. We should reduce taxpayer costs by forcing our schools to pay four times as much for internet access to private telcos, who will pocket the profits rather than reinvesting them. What's good for the Telcos is good for 'Merica, dammit!

Between this, the huge union fiasco, and the recent anti brew-pub and microbrewery bill... I'm really looking forward to the potential recalls in my state. Our current crop of legislators is so deep in the pockets of these corporations that it's just sickening. Granted, there's no guarantee that the new crop will be anything different, but better to try.

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

The University of Wisconsin's involvement in the development of the internet has contributed far more to the bottom line of the state than the meager grant monies it has received. Private interests trying to hobble the school system's internet access is essentially biting the hand that feeds. There wouldn't be an internet to have this argument over, had research institutes like the UoW not had public funding for what they do.

Furthermore, the private sector (especially AT&T and Verizon) has taken billions more money from the government when it comes to financing internet infrastructure, so all signs point to "no, the private sector is completely incapable of providing this service without government financing."

Every time I read this sort of article, I get conflicting feelings. On the one hand, I feel as if its just one more nail in the coffin of an ideal that's been long dead for years; the ideal being a true free and open market when it comes to internet/cable/mobile providers. Europe is way ahead of us in this regard, yet we (read: governing bodies) won't do anything like them, for fear of being called a dirty Socialist. Honestly, its getting as bad as the McCarthy era.

On the other hand, it always seems like everyone's getting one step closer to that breaking point, the point where we say "ENOUGH" and start actually rising up against it. Sure, other companies (Google, Sonic.net) and local municipalities (various, can't remember the specifics) have been doing great things by providing bandwidth that usually isn't even offered by the major ISPs for far less than most of their "package savings" deals, but they can't do everything. People need to start standing up to these companies, but there's no real way to do that besides "voting with your dollar." Trouble is, you've got one or two scummy choices in 95% of the situations, so in the end, its not effective enough until a new choice is offered. What can we do to make these "new choices" more prominent?

On the other hand, we can think about getting federal gov't involved, but that goes against the free/open market ideals. Could we perhaps make it so that state governments cannot regulate ISPs at all? That way, when ISPs raise their rates, new providers (ideally) would pop up much more frequently, out of need rather than simply offering another choice. Sure, it would be painful for a while, but if it leads a country-wide surge in cheap, "super-bandwidth" ISPs, I would deal with it. In a country with 5 major ISPs offering around 15/5 and numerous smaller ones offering sub 10/2, we could use a little flooding of small, regional ISPs offering 1000/x for way better than the 15/5 prices.

On the other hand....THERE IS NO OTHER HAND! (+5 Internetz for whoever gets the relatively obscure movie reference).

My $.02, criticize as you wish!

Actually, I think this is a pretty useful and complete analysis... The only real problem I could see with the last solution is people in rural areas suffering the most -- Don't think for a second that while the government isn't supplying internet to any given location that the ISPs will jack their prices up beyond what any reasonable person could afford. I could see a combination attempt, where the Federal Government pushes states and municipalities to compete, then regulating all parties equally, working the most effectively.

And I'm pretty sure the Fiddler on the Roof reference adds to your comment considerably. =)

Glad to see this made Ars, for all the wrong reasons . Calling my state representatives today to talk about lack of balance with political (corporate) agendas. As a part time college student in perpetuity, geek and ashamed badger this really hits hard

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

Corporate shills are not welcome here, you might have better luck fooling the masses in a cesspool like GameFAQs' or Gizmodo's forums.

noshellswill isn't a shill, but a troll. Take a look at their other posts and you'll see they're written to garner an emotional response.

Fuck the entire Republican Party! Elected officials are nothing more then lackeys for Corporate America, and this is how they behave when in office. Corporate America has has co-opted both parties. Lewis Black, the comedian, has it right when he ask the question "What has either party done in the last 30 years that makes the Amrican way of life meaningful for the Midddle Class."

Here in Wisconsin we are under attack by a neoconservative movement that threatens to leave this state at the mercy of privateers who in one move will place us technologically, legally and morally into the throes of the 19th century.

Is this in the Assembly or Senate? And what is the bill number? I'd like to email my local elected officials to voice my opinion.

I believe this an amendment to the budget, which will likely be passed this week. The Legislature will be in an Extraordinary Session, allowing them to pass the budget much more quickly. I believe debate starts tomorrow (Tuesday).

I guess ars never claimed that they do not run a political bias. Madison and the UW system have systematically defrauded everyone in the state who does not qualify as a public employee, a resident of mikwaukee county, or a resident of dane county. I have had my taxes funneled into dane county to be distributed to the ivory towers long enough. If you look to the extremities of the state, the quality of life is poor because the tax loads fund projects associated with the uw. If something is not changed, wisconsin will go the way of Greece.

The more the corporate-led environment betrays you folks in the United States, the more you give to it. Classic Stockholm Syndrome.

You have a democracy. Try using it. Stop feeding the beast that's consuming you.

Oh dear, someone has been in the Koolaid.

We have a Democratic Republic. Nothing at all like a Democracy (and thank god, who'd want to spend their lives every single day trying to do their job AND vote on a couple hundred laws or so?). But...

We *do* have a Free Market that would allow us to vote with our dollars - if we had the backbone to do so...

We *do* have representatives who prefer to stay in an office of power, authority and money...and we *do* vote for them - or not.

However, we don't have the same kind of resources that large corporations have. We don't have control over who gets voted into the office of the President (Please see Bush Electoral College election) and we cannot bribe (sorry) encourage our representatives to vote our way as Big Business can at this time.

First, we'd have to get these politicians out of the corporations' pockets - and into our own. Therein lies the rub - other than calling them up and threatening to fire them once a week, or starting a community bribe (sorry) "incentives" pool for politicians...what exactly do you propose we do to utilize our Democratic Republic Citizen Rights?

Perhaps we can stage a sit-in and cook s'mores over the campfire while singing kumbaya?

Thanks for showing me this Ars; I know a couple big time community organizers around the Madison WI area that gathered a good 500+ people during the Teacher Union fiasco there a short while back. I honestly don't get what makes politicians so different there than their neighbors all around them not coming up with crazy ass laws every other week.

Here in Wisconsin we are under attack by a neoconservative movement that threatens to leave this state at the mercy of privateers who in one move will place us technologically, legally and morally into the throes of the 19th century.

In a perverse way, I hope they succeed, have a mass exodus of those that refuse to live under the system, and then a mass ingress of other neocon believers. Then, when Wisconsin turns into an economic shithole over to rival Detroit, we can all point and laugh.

Boo hoo hoo. Statist pander slobbers all over this piece of lib.com agitprop. Do you whine because schools are charged by bandwidth use? Do you think Tinker-Bell and Princess Lea provide the bandwidth? Can the for-profit sector do the job without Gub'mnt financing? Yes or no? Wipe the **wobbly** drool off your face. Do you think Federal monies are for free?

Corporate shills are not welcome here, you might have better luck fooling the masses in a cesspool like GameFAQs' or Gizmodo's forums.

It would be more appropriate on the Glenn Beck youtube page. Now GTFO and take your fail along with you. I wonder how you managed to escape the Facebooknet anyway...

Elect Republicans and you can guarantee that jobs will be handed out to cronies, and state treasuries will be emptied into the pockets of whoever paid the most bribes.

Only a state run by idiots gives back Federal money in order to cause their educational institutions statewide to spend more state money. Why is Scott Walker trying to compete for Americas Most Corrupt and Incompetent Governor with Florida's Rick Scott?

In a perverse way, I hope they succeed, have a mass exodus of those that refuse to live under the system, and then a mass ingress of other neocon believers. Then, when Wisconsin turns into an economic shithole over to rival Detroit, we can all point and laugh.

Amusing though that idea might be, I don't think that's the way it would work; instead, I think that any economic collapse of Wisconsin would then be blamed on the "other guys" by the very people who screwed it, and held up as an example to others not to follow the other guys policies!

I guess ars never claimed that they do not run a political bias. Madison and the UW system have systematically defrauded everyone in the state who does not qualify as a public employee, a resident of mikwaukee county, or a resident of dane county. I have had my taxes funneled into dane county to be distributed to the ivory towers long enough. If you look to the extremities of the state, the quality of life is poor because the tax loads fund projects associated with the uw. If something is not changed, wisconsin will go the way of Greece.

Oh yes, ensuring that the next generation of Americans have a quality education, and can thus actually drive the economy in the future, by taxing the current generation of workers is a horrible thing. This comment pretty much sums up the sadly anti-intellectual sentiment that exists in this country.

"Wisconsin will go the way of Greece"? Actually sounds like a pretty apt description, now that I think about it. Ancient Greece put its focus on education, science, philosophy, etc. In doing so, it produced Alexander, who spread Hellenistic culture from Central Asia to Spain, and developed advanced concepts such as democracy, atomic theory, geometry, and pretty much the basis of everything in Western culture. It fell to two main forces: the warlike, decadent Romans (who nevertheless ended up not so bad, because they absorbed a lot of Greek culture into their own), and the rise of Christianity and its demand that its followers simply stop questioning things, leading us pretty quickly into what became known in later years as the Dark Ages.

So if you're trying to say that unless we change the current state of affairs, Wisconsin's education system will be crushed by the forces of greed and anti-intellectualism, you couldn't have picked a better analogy.

Until we have large ISPs (example: Comcast) offering fast speeds at a reasonable price, I say let the government build out all the broadband it can. Most ISPs in the USA are greedy and forcing the USA to lag behind other countries in internet connection speeds.

What I think is funny is that so many posters seem to think that this is some sort of Republican problem. As if there is actually any difference between the Republican and Democratic party. They are both sell outs to private interest and the massive lobbiest efforts of the corporations.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat problem, that is just smoke that they blow to confuse you from the real issue, this is a problem with the fundamental way that the US government works now. It is a fundamental break down in the way that our governments ignore their duty and pander to the people that pay them the most, corporations.

Don't be fooled into thinking that voting for the reverse side of the corruption coin (i.e. the Democrats) will make a lick of difference in any of this.

The Republicans and the Democrats are BOTH the problem. So, if you want to make a real change stop voting for either one of them.

Actually, I think this is a pretty useful and complete analysis... The only real problem I could see with the last solution is people in rural areas suffering the most -- Don't think for a second that while the government isn't supplying internet to any given location that the ISPs will jack their prices up beyond what any reasonable person could afford. I could see a combination attempt, where the Federal Government pushes states and municipalities to compete, then regulating all parties equally, working the most effectively.

And I'm pretty sure the Fiddler on the Roof reference adds to your comment considerably. =)

Excellent, +5 Internetz for you, sir.

Yeah, the rural folk would get the short end of the stick, but I don't think that the ISPs would make it unaffordable. Remember, they're trying to get a sale out of it. If nobody's buying, they'll lower their prices. That, on top of lowering their prices/raising their quality in response to the flood of gigabit municipal operators, should at least level everything out.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.